Lots of media talk backed by Institute Fiscal Studies that a 20% vat is coming

[larus]

And so it begins. f***ing Tories

Oh my god. You're a complete knob - really. What a f***ing pathetic statement. Don't you read the newspapers or watch the news. The economy is f***ed (because of New Labour IMO due to excess spending) and you make such a post.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Yes buy Labour would raise NI, whilst the consertatives will stick VAT up and might even stick VAT on food, hitting those who earn the least hardest. But that's not exactly unexpected is it.

So how does that work then?

NI is paid by anyone working, so even the low earners would be losing more of their income

VAT is on goods and services which people have a choice as to whether they use them or not.

Too many products we consume are luxuries but are seen more as everyday goods, (if you can get the chance watch blood sweat and luxuries on iplayer, especially the episode on coffee) so is it a bad thing that during a massive public financial blackhole left by the previous administration we are now being asked to pay extra tax on items like this which are after all a life style choice.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

And so it begins. f***ing Tories

So absolutely nothing to do with a Labour Government recklessly overspending then? Nothing to do with them giving little or no thought to whether they should have limited their spending to affordable levels or even to have saved during one of the longest economic periods of growth in the world economy ready for a time like this when we actually need that money?

The Tories and Lib Dems are now having to try to put right the mess of our public finances left by Labours disregard for financial responsibility whenever they are in power - Its like blaming the stable boy for bringing out buckets of horse manure and not the horse for producing it in the first place.

 

[cuthbert]

As I understand it the employees part of NI will still be raised it's the employers part that won't go up by the planned amount. Have I got this wrong?

 

[simmo]

Whoever 'won' would have to do this but the irony is that I dont think VAT was on labour's agenda whereas it clearly is with the coalition partners.

It has been widely mooted in the media that Darling wanted to raise VAT in his last (March 2010) budget but that Brown vetoed him because of the forthcoming election (and that VAT should be raised after if Labour won).

A raise in VAT has been on the cards for all parties, I can't believe anyone would use this for political puposes, surely everyone knew this Lab/Con or LD supporter, or maybe I am of the assumption that people read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the radio.

 

[Uncle C]

As I understand it the employees part of NI will still be raised it's the employers part that won't go up by the planned amount. Have I got this wrong?

Correct, but more than compensated for in low earners by the planned increase in tax threshold.

 

[Joe Gatting's Dad]

How easily labour supporters forget all the sneaky taxes introduced by Gordon Brown in all his guises.

The biggest was the theft of £5BN for each of the past 13 years from private pension funds = £65BN!

Taxes DOUBLED during Brown's reign and we still have child poverty.

 

[cuthbert]

Correct, but more than compensated for in low earners by the planned increase in tax threshold.

Many thanks, even better for those of us over 65 who pay a small amount of tax but no NI.

 

[London Calling]

I don't get the stealth tax agrument?

Its a tax. Taxes have to be paid for our services, defence education. The money has to come in from somewhere. People say on here more money for our boys in Afghanistan, so where from.

I would prefer parties just to tax on on a few taxes: income tax, vat.

But the tory led media has an adversion to taxes, to all parties use other means.

Ultimately the Govt is after money for services.

Labour ethic is not vat, its a regressive tax. Income tax should be its main source and of course Brown did discover NI and has progressively raised it. I don't agree, you should have theballs to add it to Income tax.I cannot accept the AGRUMENT that a party can just launch a major tax after an election witjhout commiting to it before.

Are people so bigoted than can accept that. On this logic why have manisfesto's and policies.


Dave told us acut in £6 billion here, a cut here and there was enough to the point he could increase the inheritance tax threshold and cut corporation tax.

Well I am sorry but if VAT was coming than the detail should have been b4 we voted.

 

[Badger]

This really is nonsense. It was well known by nearly everyone that all parties did not rule out the option to raise VAT to 20%, Labour, Conservatives or Liberal Democrat whomever won. It was an open secret and pretty obvious it was going to happen and it was a subject never brought up in any of the debates, because they pretty much all agreed that it HAD to happen.

Do you not realise that we as a country have to do something with the £166BN debt left after Labour's 13 years in charge. This is going to mean tax rises AND cuts and it is going to be very painful.

This

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Before jumping on the "Let's slag off the Tories" bandwagon, please consider the following, that were introduced by that great statesman Gordon Brown;

1. Introduced more stealth taxes than any other chancellor in history, equivalent to an extra 10p in the Pound on the basic rate of tax (source: Grant Thornton).
2. Sold the UK’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market ignoring expert advice not to.
3. Introduced ‘green taxes’ in the full and certain knowledge that any revenues gained were not destined to be invested in green initiatives. Yet another successful stealth tax to add to the collection.
4. Successfully achieved the goal of becoming prime minister without going through the inconvenience of being elected by the people. This in spite of the fact that New Labour gained their substantial commons majority with 57% of the voters supporting another party. So much for the benefits of our First Past The Post electoral system.
5. Was party to the sell out of the UK’s sovereignty to an unaccountable foreign ‘parliament’, in spite of a manifesto promise to allow the public to decide through a referendum.
6. Destroyed the union and in the process, ensured that his countrymen received more money per head than those in England and Wales.
7. Missed virtually every financial growth target announced in each successive budget without so much as a murmur from the press.
8. Successfully managed to dupe the press into believing that he was an iron chancellor driven by prudence, when in fact he was a spendthrift.
9. As the architect and driver of the revised PFI initiative originally proposed by the conservatives, saddled the country with a bill of £170bn which must be paid by 2032. Without having to include the figure as part of the public sector balance sheet.
10. Managed to keep the £780bn public pensions deficit off the books, even though this is equivalent to over £30,000 per household and must be paid out of future tax receipts. Estimates of this deficit have now been increased to over £1trillion.
11. Managed, without any consideration of the irony, to lecture people on their level of borrowings, whilst building up nearly £500bn of debt on the governments own ‘credit card’. If other recent liabilities are taken into account, this figure would rise substantially over £1trillion.
12. Introduced and supported a complicated tax credit programme that has managed to lose £2bn every year through fraud and errors.
13. Left the taxpayer saddled with £1.7bn of Metronet’s debt having been the person that pushed through the Private Public Partnership initiative for the London Underground.
14. Managed to convince the public that local authorities were responsible for the doubling of council tax. Meanwhile he was actually placing responsibility for all additional services firmly with the local councils.
15. Managed a real blinder, by camouflaging the inflation rate by changing the measurement from RPI to CPI.
16. Underwritten £17bn of debt for Network Rail, without having to include it on the public balance sheet.
17. Survived the embarrassment of claiming in March 2006 that 31,000 government employees had been trimmed off the payroll, whilst the Office for National Statistics claimed one month later, that the headcount had actually increased by 62,000 a difference of 93,000!
18. Managed to introduce such a complex set of rules and regulations, designed to extract maximum tax take that the annual Finance Act (summary of tax changes in the budget) has increased from 300 pages or so in the 1980’s to over 10,000.
19. At a time when businesses are struggling and people are having to tighten their belts, presided over a government that boasts some 78 acres of empty space in office buildings and grace and favour homes.
20. Managed to push another 3.5m people into the higher income tax bracket, using a favoured trick of ‘fiscal drag’, where the tax threshold is raised more slowly than earnings are rising, so that workers end up paying a higher proportion of their income in tax.
21. Twice shifted the timing of the ‘economic cycle’ in order that the so called “golden rule” would not be missed, resulting in a brazen massaging of the figures.
22. Ensured that there are now twice as many tax collectors as there are nurses, demonstrating firmly where the government’s priorities lie.
23. Masterfully convinced people that they are “better off under Labour” even though each family now pays more than £5,000 in extra tax, compared to 1997.

 

[London Calling]

One additional point.

So if Labour had gone through this election, basically saying,

nah, we got no plans for increasing NI, nah desparate tory lies from a has been party.

No, we can afford our tax cuts and next year we will start the econnomy.

Then it gets elected.

And within weeks, the leaks happen to its media friends, it city friends, that we will get an increase in NI.

You don't think that's a lie, you don't imagine the Daily Mail wouldn't go ape.

But Its ok, because since we in a mess, the parties can basically lie about the most important issue to the electorate, taxes.

Just another question to all anti-Brown.

Can you tell me the exact deficit we would have now if Dave had been in power, because its easy to say Labour f***ed up, but most of Europe and the US have similar lines of approach, so there is some consensus here.

And you can't tell me the Tories would have been harder on the Banks cause that's not their party bag.

 

[withdeanwombat]

The irony is that the 'maifesto' that was presented yesterday actually has less substance in it than any of the 3 that the public voted on. It includes lots of new money from increasing the threshold (which could be offset by not having tax credits) but very little in terms of how to save/raise money.

Whoever 'won' would have to do this but the irony is that I dont think VAT was on labour's agenda whereas it clearly is with the coalition partners. The IFS have been questioning the Tory numbers for months (as I've posted on here previously) and actually said that labour's plans added up albeit they didn't address the deficit as quickly as they wished. So the voters were faced with one set of figures that balanced but left a deficit that was deeper for longer (Labour), one set that at least tackled the deficit in a credible way but had gaps (Lib Dem) and one that was deemed unworkable (Tory). Let's see which two of the latter gets implemented.

And whilst here - I couldn't help noticing that the coalition document referred to 'Labour's financial crisis' I assume that's different from the global one everybody else is suffering from? Or does Barack Obama blame Gordon Brown for theirs as well?

I wish you'd stop posting sense !!

 

[Curious Orange]

I don't get the stealth tax agrument?

Its a tax. Taxes have to be paid for our services, defence education. The money has to come in from somewhere. People say on here more money for our boys in Afghanistan, so where from.

I would prefer parties just to tax on on a few taxes: income tax, vat.

But the tory led media has an adversion to taxes, to all parties use other means.

Ultimately the Govt is after money for services.

Labour ethic is not vat, its a regressive tax. Income tax should be its main source and of course Brown did discover NI and has progressively raised it. I don't agree, you should have theballs to add it to Income tax.I cannot accept the AGRUMENT that a party can just launch a major tax after an election witjhout commiting to it before.

Are people so bigoted than can accept that. On this logic why have manisfesto's and policies.


Dave told us acut in £6 billion here, a cut here and there was enough to the point he could increase the inheritance tax threshold and cut corporation tax.

Well I am sorry but if VAT was coming than the detail should have been b4 we voted.

To be fair to the then opposition the last Government didn't actually open the books up for scrutiny so it'd be very difficult to be entirely specific about precisely what they'd do if they were to win the election. Of course we now have a coalition government so manifesto promises (or otherwise) are to a certain extent no longer valid anyway.

 

[London Calling]

Before jumping on the "Let's slag off the Tories" bandwagon, please consider the following, that were introduced by that great statesman Gordon Brown;

1. Introduced more stealth taxes than any other chancellor in history, equivalent to an extra 10p in the Pound on the basic rate of tax (source: Grant Thornton).
2. Sold the UK’s gold reserves at the bottom of the market ignoring expert advice not to.
3. Introduced ‘green taxes’ in the full and certain knowledge that any revenues gained were not destined to be invested in green initiatives. Yet another successful stealth tax to add to the collection.
4. Successfully achieved the goal of becoming prime minister without going through the inconvenience of being elected by the people. This in spite of the fact that New Labour gained their substantial commons majority with 57% of the voters supporting another party. So much for the benefits of our First Past The Post electoral system.
5. Was party to the sell out of the UK’s sovereignty to an unaccountable foreign ‘parliament’, in spite of a manifesto promise to allow the public to decide through a referendum.
6. Destroyed the union and in the process, ensured that his countrymen received more money per head than those in England and Wales.
7. Missed virtually every financial growth target announced in each successive budget without so much as a murmur from the press.
8. Successfully managed to dupe the press into believing that he was an iron chancellor driven by prudence, when in fact he was a spendthrift.
9. As the architect and driver of the revised PFI initiative originally proposed by the conservatives, saddled the country with a bill of £170bn which must be paid by 2032. Without having to include the figure as part of the public sector balance sheet.
10. Managed to keep the £780bn public pensions deficit off the books, even though this is equivalent to over £30,000 per household and must be paid out of future tax receipts. Estimates of this deficit have now been increased to over £1trillion.
11. Managed, without any consideration of the irony, to lecture people on their level of borrowings, whilst building up nearly £500bn of debt on the governments own ‘credit card’. If other recent liabilities are taken into account, this figure would rise substantially over £1trillion.
12. Introduced and supported a complicated tax credit programme that has managed to lose £2bn every year through fraud and errors.
13. Left the taxpayer saddled with £1.7bn of Metronet’s debt having been the person that pushed through the Private Public Partnership initiative for the London Underground.
14. Managed to convince the public that local authorities were responsible for the doubling of council tax. Meanwhile he was actually placing responsibility for all additional services firmly with the local councils.
15. Managed a real blinder, by camouflaging the inflation rate by changing the measurement from RPI to CPI.
16. Underwritten £17bn of debt for Network Rail, without having to include it on the public balance sheet.
17. Survived the embarrassment of claiming in March 2006 that 31,000 government employees had been trimmed off the payroll, whilst the Office for National Statistics claimed one month later, that the headcount had actually increased by 62,000 a difference of 93,000!
18. Managed to introduce such a complex set of rules and regulations, designed to extract maximum tax take that the annual Finance Act (summary of tax changes in the budget) has increased from 300 pages or so in the 1980’s to over 10,000.
19. At a time when businesses are struggling and people are having to tighten their belts, presided over a government that boasts some 78 acres of empty space in office buildings and grace and favour homes.
20. Managed to push another 3.5m people into the higher income tax bracket, using a favoured trick of ‘fiscal drag’, where the tax threshold is raised more slowly than earnings are rising, so that workers end up paying a higher proportion of their income in tax.
21. Twice shifted the timing of the ‘economic cycle’ in order that the so called “golden rule” would not be missed, resulting in a brazen massaging of the figures.
22. Ensured that there are now twice as many tax collectors as there are nurses, demonstrating firmly where the government’s priorities lie.
23. Masterfully convinced people that they are “better off under Labour” even though each family now pays more than £5,000 in extra tax, compared to 1997.

Where do you get that from?

As it happens,

I don't won't to get into debates about the election again, that's been done to death.

The people have voted and my left of centre desires lost. I accept that.

 

[London Calling]

To be fair to the then opposition the last Government didn't actually open the books up for scrutiny so it'd be very difficult to be entirely specific about precisely what they'd do if they were to win the election. Of course we now have a coalition government so manifesto promises (or otherwise) are to a certain extent no longer valid anyway.

The budgets were fully open and all parties have access to the same financial information? If VAT is coming in soon, then it has been calculated as such.

If its a tax in 18 months then so be it.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This could have big repercussions for some small businesses who supply services to non-VAT registered customers, i.e most private individuals.

A 20% VAT rate would mean if you did £69,000 of Sales per year then you'd charge £69,000, but if you did £70,000 of Sales you'd need to charge 20% VAT so, potentially £84,000. This is equivalent to putting your prices up overnight by almost 22%!

In practice VAT registration means you can reclaim input VAT so your net prices could go down because your costs go down, but for most service providers with low input VAT you are talking about a 20% price rise.

 

[ROSM]

It has been widely mooted in the media that Darling wanted to raise VAT in his last (March 2010) budget but that Brown vetoed him because of the forthcoming election (and that VAT should be raised after if Labour won).

A raise in VAT has been on the cards for all parties, I can't believe anyone would use this for political puposes, surely everyone knew this Lab/Con or LD supporter, or maybe I am of the assumption that people read newspapers, watch TV or listen to the radio.

I read the papers and watch the TV. All I'm saying is that my understanding is that a VAT rise was not on the labour plans IMMEDIATELY after an election. As it is the employers element of the NI rise has been scrapped but the employee part hasn't so we're looking at taxes on individuals.

And I cant wait to see the Banking levy being proposed? That may drive a few more tax elements out of the UK

 

[Dandyman]

The country is in S+++ Street. Something has to give, but a VAT rise puts up all end costs.

It also acts a form of regressive taxation as any VAT rise will hurt those with least far more than the rich.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I don't get the stealth tax agrument?

Its a tax. Taxes have to be paid for our services, defence education. The money has to come in from somewhere. People say on here more money for our boys in Afghanistan, so where from.

I would prefer parties just to tax on on a few taxes: income tax, vat.

But the tory led media has an adversion to taxes, to all parties use other means.

Ultimately the Govt is after money for services.

Labour ethic is not vat, its a regressive tax. Income tax should be its main source and of course Brown did discover NI and has progressively raised it. I don't agree, you should have theballs to add it to Income tax.I cannot accept the AGRUMENT that a party can just launch a major tax after an election witjhout commiting to it before.

Are people so bigoted than can accept that. On this logic why have manisfesto's and policies.


Dave told us acut in £6 billion here, a cut here and there was enough to the point he could increase the inheritance tax threshold and cut corporation tax.

Well I am sorry but if VAT was coming than the detail should have been b4 we voted.

9th August 2009
20 percent Vat is likely whoever wins the next election | The Spectator

It was in the public domain long before the last election was even called.

I can't see why they are getting grief for this when they were not the ones who got us into this mess in the first place, had Labour been more financially responsible,then there would have been no need for this increase.